4y 




4. ^- 






r- ''^^o* 



»p^j. 






% 






*•• -^rS. A* ♦^^ 









^'- % ♦* »ii 




♦ ^^ 




























^ » • • * ^ 























^ THE 






Faith of Baptists. 



By T. T. EATON, D.D„ LL.D, 



Cloth, 25 Cents; Paper, 15 Cents. 



LOUISVIIiliE, KY.: 

BAPTIST BOOK CONCERN, 

1895 



OUP PUBLIQATIONS. 

WORD EDITION-IN BOARDS 

Single copy $ 10 

Single copy, postage prepaid, 12 

Per dozen, by express, not prepaid, 1 20 

Per dozen, by mail, prepaid, 1 40 

Per hundred, not prepaid, . .10 00 

NOTE EDITION. 

Boards, $ 35 Postage paid $ 40 

Cloth, 75 Postage paid 85 

Matthew Henry's Commentary. Cloth. 3 

Vols. $10.00. 

Bible Doctrine of Inspiration. By Basil 

Manly, D.D.. LL.D. Cloth. $1.25 

Talks on Getting^ Married. By T. T. Eaton, 

D.D., LL.D. Handsomely bound 75 c. 
Immersion. By J. T. Christian, D.D. Cloth. 

$100. 

The Sermon Builder, or Anderson's System 

of Sermon Structure. By Rev. G. S. Anderson. 
Cloth. $1.60. 
Close Communion: or Baptism as a Prere- 
quisite to the Lord's Supper. By J. T. Christian, 
D.D. Price, Postage Paid, $1.00. 

Orig"in of the Disciples of Christ. By Wm. 

H Whitsitt. D.D..LL.D. Cloth. $1.00. 

Should Women Speak in Mixed Public 

Assemblies? By John A. Broadus, D.D.,LL.D. 5 c. 

The Heathen Lost Without the Gospel. 

By Dr. W. W. Gardner. 5 cents 
Shall Woman Preach? By Rev. W. P. 

Harvey, D.D. 10 c 
Infant Baptism. By Dr. W. H. Whitsitt. 10c. 
The Ante-Nicene Fathers on Baptism. 

By Rev. Robert W. Sanders. 15 cents. 

The Baptist Confession of Faith. Spur- 

geon's edition 10 cents 
Communion. By Dr. W. W. GardneV. $1.00. 
Wisdom in Soul Winning. By W. H. Felix, 

D.D. 10 cents. 
The Higher Criticism : What Does it Prove? 

By Henry C. Vedder. 10 cents. 

How to Behave as a Church Member. By 

T. T. Eaton, D.D.,LL.D. 5 cts. 



THE FAITH 



OF THE 



IB^A^F^TTISTrS. 



\1'' 



.1^^ 



By T. T. EATON, D.D., LL.D. 



kV^^ 



LOUISVILLE, KV. : 

BAPTIST BOOK CONCERN. 










Copyright, 1895, 
Baptist Book Concern, Louisville, Ky. 



THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 



"pAPTISTS rejoice to hold in common with 
^ many others the doctrines of grace and the 
great principles that make up the Evangelical 
faith. They lay special emphasis, however, on 
the importance of strict conformity to Bible 
teaching. God is wiser than men, and He 
alone has the right to command us. We do 
not consider that ^'something else will do as 
well" as what is commanded, nor do we be- 
lieve that ^'it makes no difference" whether we 
obey God's requirements or not. We draw no 
line between ^'essentials" and ''nonessentials" 
when we come to obey the commands of our 
Lord. Nothing large enough for God to com- 
mand is so small that we can label it**' ^nonessen- 
tial," and neglect it with impunity. ^'Ye are 
my friends if ye do" — the essentials? nay, 
verily, but — "whatsoever I command you." 
These are the words of our Redeemer and Lord 
before whom we must stand at last to be 



4 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

judged. It is God with whom we have to do 
and whom we must please. 

Three prominent points on which Baptists 
differ from other denominations, regarded as 
EvangeHcal, are : First, The Church ; Second, 
Eaptism, and Third, The Lord's Supper. Bap- 
tist doctrines on these subjects follow as corolla- 
ries to their fundamental doctrines of direct and 
personal responsibility to God and of absolute 
submission to Scripture teaching. But these 
three things are most discussed, and hence 
most prominent. Let us consider them in their 
order, and let our aim be to see clearly just 
what the Bible teaches on these subjects. 



THE CHURCH. 



CHAPTER I. 
THE CHURCH. 



T^fE find nothing in the Old Testament on 
^ ' these subjects, full as it is of most im- 
portant lessons on other matters. It has abso- 
lutely nothing to say on either the Church, 
Baptism, or the Lord's Supper. These things 
belong wholly to the new dispensation and not 
at all to the old. The only passage that might 
seem at variance with this statement is Acts 
vii.38, where the children of Israel are spoken 
of during their wandering as ^^the church in the 
wilderness," but here the translation should be 
''^congregation'' instead of ^'church." The Re- 
vised Version puts ' ^congregation" in the mar- 
gin. Meyer translates it ^'assembly;" similarly 
the Bible Commentary, the Pulpit Commentary, 
and others. Indeed, so far as I know, this is 
not denied by any competent scholar. 

Turning to the New Testament we find the 
word church used in two special senses, first as 
a local body of baptized believers, and second 
as including all the redeemed of all ages and 
lands. We nowhere find the word applied to a 



6 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

territorial organization. We do not read of the 
chu7xh of Judea, or of Asia, or of Galatia; but 
it is ever — ''the churches of Judea" (Gal. i. 22), 
''the churches of Asia'' (I. Cor. xvi. 19), "the 
churches of Galatia" (I. Cor. xvi.i; Gal. i.2), 
"the churches of Macedonia" (II. Cor. viii.i), 
the plural always being used when more than 
one local body is included. On the other hand 
we read of "the church which was in Jerusa- 
lem" (Acts xi.22), "the church of God which 
is at Corinth" (I. Cor. i.2), "the church of 
Ephesus" (Rev. ii. i), and so on. There is no 
warrant for calling a denomination a church, 
as when we speak of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, the 
F.oman Catholic Church. A church cannot be 
composed of churches. If the local body be called 
a church, then the denomination should not be 
called so. There are persons who speak of 
"the Baptist Church," meaning the Baptist de- 
nomination. There are many thousands of 
Baptist churches, but there is no such thing as 
"the Baptist Church.'^ 

The Greek word Ivr/lr^aia originally meant 
"called out," and was used to describe a secu- 
lar body in Athens and other Greek cities, but 
it always referred to a local assembly. It is 



THE CHURCH. 7 

used in this sense in Acts xix.32,39,41, where 
the mob in the theatre of Ephesus is called 
kxxXfjffia, which is translated ^ ^assembly.'' This 
was not a religious organization at all, but was 
a local assembly, and the use of the word 
serves to emphasize the idea that a church is a 
local body. The same is true of the passage, 
Acts vii.38, above mentioned, where Luke re- 
cords Stephen as speaking of the ^^congregation 
in the wilderness" as ^^the church (sxz/r^^jV/) 
in the wilderness." The Israelites are nowhere 
referred to as a church except when they were 
all in one local body in the desert. 

Since all the redeemed are ^ ^called out" from 
the world we find the term applied to them 
collectively, e.g. ''On this rock I will build my 
church" (Matt. xvi. 18); ''Christ is the head of 
the church;" "as Christ also loved the church 
and gave himself for it" (Eph. v. 23, 25). "The 
church," as the bride of Christ, includes all 
who are saved, of all ages and lands. 

These local churches, the only kind known 
to the New Testament, were independent 
bodies and were subject to no central authority. 
There is no hint of the existence of any sucli 
liigher authority in the Bible, and all that is 
said to the churches and about them assumes 
their entire independence. Gibbon, the his- 



5 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

torian, will not be suspected of any partiality 
for the Baptists, and yet he says, speaking of 
the churches in Apostolic times: ^'The socie- 
ties, which were instituted in the cities of the 
Roman empire, were united only by the ties of 
faith and charity. Independence and equality 
formed the basis of their internal constitution." 
(Decline and Fall, I, p. 554.) Mosheim, the 
great ecclesiastical historian, says (Vol. I, 
Century I, Ch. XIV, p. 107): "The churches, 
in those early times, were entirely independent; 
none of them subject to any foreign jurisdic- 
tion, but each one governed by its own rulers 
and its own laws." 

Archbishop AVhately says : ^ 'It appears plainly 
from the sacred narrative, that though the many 
churches which the apostles founded were 
branches of one spiritual brotherhood, of which 
the Lord Jesus Christ is the heavenly Head — 
though there was one Lord, one faith, one bap- 
tism for all of them, yet they were each a dis- 
tinct, independent community on earth, united 
by the common principles on which they were 
founded, and by their mutual agreement, affec- 
tion and respect : but not having any recognized 
head on earth, or acknowledging any sover- 
eignty of one of these societies over others." — 
Kingdom of Christ, p. 36. 



THE CHURCH. 9 

Ruskin says: "The word (i.e. church) occurs 
in the New Testament, as I said, one hundred 
and fourteen times. In every one of those oc- 
currences it bears one and the same grand 
sense: that of a congregation or assembly of 
men." — Construction of Sheepf olds ^ p. 7. 

Gibbon, the historian, was not identified with 
any church, while Archbishop Whately was a 
leading light of the Church of England (Epis- 
copalian), and Mr. Ruskin is the leading liter- 
ary man now alive. To their testimonies many 
more might be added. 

The Apostolic churches w^ere composed en- 
tirely of believers. There is no hint of any 
infant membership or of any catechumens. 
Paul addresses ^'the church of God which is at 
Corinth'' as '^them that are sanctified in Christ 
Jesus, called saints," etc. The other Epistles 
are quite similar. In Acts ii.47, w^e read, ac- 
cording to the Revised Version: ^'And the 
Lord added unto them day by day those that 
were being saved." Such language is true only 
of believers. More of this later. 

The officers of a New Testament church 
were bishop (elder or pastor) and deacon. The 
terms b?shop and elder are used indifferently of 
the same person and do not mark two classes of 
preachers. In writing to the Philippians Paul 



lO THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

addresses '^all the saints which are in Philippi, 
with the bishops and deacons." (Phil. i. i.) 
Had there been any other class he would cer- 
tainly have named them. In the twentieth 
chapter of Acts (v. 17) we have the account of 
Paul's sending from Miletus ^^to call the elders 
of the church" at Ephesus. When they came 
he exhorted them and bade them an affectionate 
farewell. Among other things he told them: 
^'Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made 
you bishops," as the Revised Version has it. 
(Acts XX. 28.) The word is z-irryji-o^, which is 
elsewhere rendered hisJiop. Here then the same 
men are called both ''elders"' and "bishops." 

In the third chapter of I. Timothy we have 
clearly set forth the qualifications of bishops 
and deacons, with no hint of any other order. 
Had there been any order between bishop and 
deacon, as e. g. priest or ruling elder, it is in- 
credible that Paul w^ould have skipped such 
order and gone at once from bishop to deacon. 
It were easy to cite the concessions of leading 
Episcopalian scholars that in New Testament 
times bishop and elder were the same, and there- 
fore such a thing as diocesan episcopacy*'^ dcs^ un- 
known. The best scholar the Church of Eng- 
land has produced, Bishop Lightfoot, says: 'Tt 



THE CHURCH. II 

is a fact now generally recognized by theolo- 
gians of all shades of opinion, that in the lan- 
guage of the New Testament the same officer 
in the church is called indifferently 'bishop' 
(i-iVzoTTo?) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (-or^- 
i3uT£pog),^^ — Com. on Philippians^ p. 95. 

Equally without foundation is the claim for 
"ruling elders," as distinguished from preach- 
ing elders, in the churches. There is only one 
passage w^hich has any semblance of pointing 
in this direction, viz. I. Tim. v. 17: "Let the 
ciders that rule well be counted worthy of 
double honor, especially those who labor in the 
word and doctrine." It is urged that here we 
have two distinct classes of elders indicated, 
those who rule, and those who preach. But 
instead of having two classes we have simply a 
specification under the one class. Take the 
parallel passage in this same chapter (v. 8) : 
"If any provide not for his own, and especially 
for those of his own house, he hath denied the 
faith, and is worse than an infidel." It will not 
do to say that here we have two distinct classes, 
"his own" and "those of his own house." It 
is evident that the latter are included in the 
former, and that we have simply a specification 
under the one class. Again (Gal. vi. 10) : "As 
we have therefore opportunity, let us do good 



12 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

unto all men, especially unto them who are of 
the household of faith.'' Will any one claim 
that here are two distinct classes, and that those 
•'Svho are of the household of faith'' are not in- 
cluded in ^'all men"? So in the other case, 
'^those who labor in the word and doctrine" 
are not a distinct class of elders, but are simply 
a specification under the one class of ^ ^elders 
that rule well," who are ''counted worthy of 
double honor." 

If there were ruling elders, as distinguished 
from preaching elders, in the Apostolic 
churches, why did not Paul address them, when 
writing to the churches, as he addressed ^'the 
bishops and deacons"? And why were they 
omitted when the qualifications were given for 
bishops and deacons? The fact is ''ruling 
elders," who were not preachers, were unknown 
till John Calvin started them. 

The idea of a priest in a church is utterly 
contrary to the whole spirit of New Testament 
Christianity. Christ is the one and only priest 
who once for all made the offering for sin, of 
which all the offerings of the Levitical priests 
were but types and symbols. When the cry 
went up from the cross, "It is finished" — "the 
veil of the temple was rent in twain from the 
top to the bottom," and no more sacrifices were 



THE CHURCH. , I3 

to be offered forever. The ritualistic dispensa- 
tion was ended, and the new spiritual dispensa- 
tion should henceforth obtain. Jesus ''bore 
our sins in His own body on the tree," and He 
is the one sin-bearer. ^^He ever liveth to make 
intercession for us/' and He is the one inter- 
cessor. To bring in any other sin bearer or 
intercessor is to declare that the work of Christ 
is insufficient. 

Even the Apostles were in no sense priests. 
They offered no sacrifices for the early Chris- 
tians and made no intercession for them. They 
were specially inspired, endued with special 
authority, and given power to work miracles. 
In the very nature of the case they could have 
no successors. If any man were truly a suc- 
cessor to the Apostles he woiild be able to 
work miracles and to give us additional Scrip- 
ture as much inspired as any already given. 
Paul's, and John's and Peter's Epistles are as 
truly and as fully inspired as any other parts of 
the Bible. ' 'Apostolic succession" therefore is 
a baseless figment of the imagination, without 
any foundation in Scripture, in reason, or in 
fact. Dean Alford concedes this. 

The famous historian, Macaulay, himself a 
member of the Church of England, in his essay 
on Church and State, discusses the doctrine of 



14 . THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

' 'apostolical succession/' and says : "It is prob- 
able that no clergyman in the Church of Eng- 
land can trace up his spiritual genealogy from 
bishop to bishop so far back as the time of the 
conquest. There remain many centuries dur- 
ing which the transmission of his orders is 
buried in utter darkness. And whether he be 
a priest by succession from the Apostles de- 
pends on the question, whether during that 
long period, some thousands of events took 
place, any one of which may, without any gross 
improbability, be supposed not to have taken 
place. We have not a little of evidence for any 
one of these events. We do not even know the 
names or countries of the men to whom it is 
taken for granted that these events happened. 
. . . That during this period, the overseers of 
all the little Christian societies scattered through 
the Roman empire, held their spiritual authority 
by virtue of holy orders derived from the 
Apostles, cannot be proved by contemporary 
testimony, or by any testimony which can be 
regarded as decisive. . . . We will not there- 
fore go as far as Chillingworth. We only say 
thai Vv^e see no satisfactory proof of the fact, 
that the Church of England possesses the apos- 
tolical succession." — Macaulaf s Essays, Y o\. II, 
pp. 372,376. 



THE CHURCH. 15 

A New Testament church is then a local 
congregation of baptized believers — or "saints," 
as Paul calls them — banded together on their 
profession of faith for the maintenance of the 
ministry of the word and of the ordinances of 
the gospel, and to win the world to Christ. It 
is not a sort of contrivance into which sinners 
are to be thrown and by being subjected to cer- 
tain rites, ceremonies, etc., to be changed into 
Christians. No man should join a church in 
order to be saved. He must not join until he is 
saved, and ready to go forward in obedience to 
Christ's commands. Just the worst place in the 
world for an unsaved man is in a church. He 
flatters himself that somehow it will be well with 
him because he is a church member; and he 
does not take to himself the exhortations from 
the pulpit to come to Christ. Christian friends 
do not labor with him or for him, and he is 
allowed to go on to death, to cry at last in vain, 
"Lord! Lord!'' and to hear the awful sentence, 
"Depart" — "I never knew you." 

New Testament churches were composed of 
bishops (or pastors), deacons and saints, as Paul 
writes to the Philippians — these three classes, 
and they are not "orders." When a man is 
ordained deacon or bishop he does not thereby, 
take rank above his brethren. He is simply as-- 



1 6 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

signed to a special service. No one man can 
outrank any other man in a New Testament 
church. All are brethren, absolutely on an 
equality so far as rank and privilege are con- 
cerned. Jesus Christ is the only Master in 
Zion. Saint, in the New Testament sense, has 
a very different meaning from that in which the 
word is generally used. The canonizing of 
certain persons by the Roman Catholics, and 
the title Saint, given to certain New Testament 
characters, has given the word a wrong mean- 
ing in the popular mind, and has obscured the 
meaning of the Scripture term. The Apostles 
never spoke of each other as saints, and never 
used the term saint as a title. Paul never said 
^^St. Peter,'' ^'St. Matthew,'' *'St. Mark," ''St. 
Luke," or ''St. John." Nor did either of them 
ever say "St. Paul." The headings of the 
books in our Testaments, be it remembered, 
are not inspired : only the text is God's Word. 
If we give the title "saint" to these servants of 
God, why not go farther and say, "St. David," 
"St. Isaiah," "St. Jeremiah," and "St. Ezekiel"? 
No, a New Testament saint is not a canon- 
ized man nor one who is perfect, but simply a 
believer on the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul ad- 
dresses the church at Corinth a.s saints, and yet 
he brings very grave charges against them. 



THE CHURCH. I 7 

Those who were ^ 'saved" were added to the 
church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. 
They had ' 'gladly received the word." And 
no man has any right to offer himself for mem- 
bership in a church unless this is true of him, 
and unless he has repented toward God and 
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. Nobody 
joined a church in the Apostolic times without 
a profession of faith. It was true, however, then 
as it is true now, and as it will be true to the 
end, that there were those received into the 
churches who were unconverted; such as Simon 
Magus, Ananias and Sapphira. And Paul calls 
upon the church at Corinth to exclude a wicked 
member. The Bible teaches clearly the doc- 
trine of a regenerated church membership; 
that each member must be required, since we 
cannot see the hearty to make a credible pro- 
fession of faith. 

The highest ecclesiastical authority in the 
world is that of a local church, in which all the 
members are equal and call no man master. 
Baptists have ever insisted upon soul liberty, 
and have ever resisted unto death the claims ot 
any man or set of men to come between the 
individual soul and Christ. He and He alone 
is Lord of the conscience. I thank God for the 



1 8 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

noble heritage of the Baptists in this matter of 
rehgious freedom. 

Prof. Austin Phelps, of Andover Theological 
Seminary, says: *'Even Thomas Jefferson con- 
fessed that his first clear conception of a re- 
public came from the polity of an obscure Bap- 
tist church in Virgina." — My Portfolio^ p. 125. 

Sir James Mcintosh says: '^The Baptists 
suffered more than any others under Charles II. , 
because they professed the principles of re- 
ligious liberty." 

And John Locke, the philosopher, whose 
essay on Toleration has been believed by some 
to have been the beginning of modern religious 
freedom, says: ^'The Baptists were from the 
beginning the firm advocates of absolute lib- 
erty." 

Our American historian, Bancroft, says: 
'^Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of 
mind, was, from the first, the trophy of the 
Baptists." — Hist, U, S., Vol. II, pp. 66, 67, 
14th ed. 

James Anthony Froude, the historian and 
essayist, says, in his life of John Bunyan : ^'The 
Baptists are the most thorough-going and con- 
sistent of all the Protestant sects." — Bunyany 

P- 35- 

Froude also says, speaking of the persecu- 



THE CHURCH. I9 

tions of the Baptists of the Netherlands: '^On 
them the laws of the country might take their 
natural course and no voice was raised to speak 
for them. . . . For them no Europe was agi- 
tated, no courts were ordered into mourning, 
no royal heart trembled with indignation. At 
their death, the world looked on complacently, 
indifferently or exultingly : for them history has 
no word of praise.'' — Hist, of England^ Vol. II, 

p. 358. 

Baptists hold that ^'the church was made for 
man and not man fof the church.'' 

A study of history shows that a departure 
from New Testament faith is ever accompanied 
by a departure from New Testament polity. 
Errors in church government crystallize and 
render permanent errors in doctrine. A right 
church polity is the mould of right doctrine, 
and thus it becomes of the greatest importance 
to preserve unsullied the polity given in the 
New Testament. 



20 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 



CHAPTER II. 

WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

BAPTISTS affirm that New Testament bap- 
tism is the immersion in water in the 
name of the Trinit}^ of a beHever on a pro- 
fession of his faith by one duly set apart by 
a church for such service. Other denomina- 
tions, while admitting this to be baptism, 
hold that sprinkling or pouring water upon 
a person is also valid baptism. But since all 
admit that the immersion is right, and many 
insist that sprinkling and pouring are wrong, 
why cannot all agree to take the immersion ? 
Why be willing to be doubtful when you can 
be certain ? Baptists are not trying to force on 
others a baptism they repudiate ; but others are 
trying to force on us a baptism we repudiate, 
and often we are roundly denounced as ^ ^nar- 
row" and ^'bigoted" for objecting to this. We 
simply ask other denominations to practice 
what they themselves admit to be valid bap- 
tism. This does not involve any surrender of 
conscience on their part; while for us to accept 
sprinkling and pouring would require a surren- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 2 1 

der of our consciences. Let no one say, there- 
fore, that, at least so far as the matter of bap- 
tism is concerned, Baptists stand in the way of 
Christian union. 

What is the proper act of baptism is to be 
determined by an appeal to Scripture. We 
must of course appeal to that part of the Bible 
which discusses the subject, and hence we 
come to the New Testament, since the Old 
Testament has nothing whatever to say on the 
subject. Passages of the Old Testament have, 
however, been cited in the baptismal contro- 
versy, one of which we mention. Is. lii. 14, 15 : 
^'As many were astonished at thee; (his visage 
was so marred more than any man, and his 
form more than the sons of men :) so shall he 
sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut 
their mouths at him: for that which had not 
been told them shall they see; and that v/hich 
they had not heard shall they consider.'' It is 
claimed that this sprinkling is a prophecy of 
baptism, which is to be by sprinkling. Now I 
admit that if it had been proved that sprinkling 
was baptism then it migfit be argued with some 
plausibility that there was a prophecy of bap- 
tism in Old Testament passages which speak of 
sprinkling ; but certainly this cannot be urged 
as proof that sprinkling is baptism. But the 



2 2 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

contention vanishes into thinnest air when the 
passage is studied, and it is seen that the word 
spinkle is a mistranslation, marring the sense 
of the language. It should be astonish or startle, 
and it is so translated in the margin of the 
Revised Version. The Hebrew word {iiazah) 
is rendered in this passage by Gesenius : ''So 
shall he cause many nations to rejoice in him- 
self ;'' by Davies : ''So shall he startle (or sur- 
prise) many nations." These two Hebrew 
lexicographers give as the first meanings of the 
word (Davies), '7^ bound, to spring, of liquid to 
spurt, Hiph. to cause to leap for strong feeling, to 
make to stcr/t,^^ and this passage in Isaiah is then 
cited. (Gesenius), "to leap for Joy, to exult, to 
spring. The primary idea is that of sparkling, 
flying out, . . . Hiph, to cause to leap for joy, to 
cause to exult, to make to rejoice," and then 
follows the translation above given of this pas- 
sage. The Septuagint version (made by sev- 
enty learned Jew^s in the time of the Ptolemies 
and used in Palestine in the time of Christ, 
translates nazahhy the Greek /'^/^.v/r/C^, rendering 
the passage, ^'-ovtm Oaoixdaovzai eOvTj -oAkd £-' 
aoTwr ''So shall many nations be astonished at 
him." And this becomes even plainer w^hen we 
examine the passage in English, "As many 
w^ere astonished at thee, (his visage was marred 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 23 

more than any man and his form more than the 
sons of men") — an astonishing thing — ^^so shall 
he astonish many nations : the kings shall shut 
their mouths at him/' — in wonder — ''for that 
which had not been told them shall they see; 
and that which they had not heard shall they 
consider.'^ Thus the passage is made clear 
and intelligible, while by using the word 
''sprinkle" the meaning is obscured. 

But the Old Testament has nothing whatever 
to say on the subject of baptism, and so we 
come to the New. ■ Baptism began with John 
the Baptist, who was sent by God to preach 
and to baptize. We read, Mark i.4,5, "John 
did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the 
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 
And there went out unto him all the land of 
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap- 
tized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing 
their sins." Now the act performed by John is 
expressed in the word iVnglicized into baptize^ the 
Greek verb ^a-Tilio. Let us see v/hat this word 
means in this passage. It is an admitted principle 
of language that the meaning of a word may be 
substituted for the word in a sentence without 
at all changing the sense. Let us apply this 
principle here. There are three English words 
claimed as translations of ^ar.ri^oj in this pas- 



24 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

sage, viz. sprinkle^ pour^ and immerse. Let us 
substitute each of these in the passage and note 
the results. *'And there went out unto him all 
the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and 
were all sprinkled of him in the river of Jordan, 
confessing their sins.'* How could a man 
sprinkle people in a river? He might throw 
them in or drive them in, but the only way he 
could sprinkle them in would be first to reduce 
them to a liquid or a powder. We see that 
sprinkle in this passage does not make sense, 
and therefore it is not admissible to translate 
^aTLTi^iD by sprinkle here. Try pour. ^^And 
there went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
and they of Jerusalem, and were all poured of 
him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.'' 
This is no better. John could not have poured 
the people in the river without first reducing 
them to a powder or a liquid. To talk about 
pouring people in a river is nonsense. And 
since the sense of the passage is destroyed by 
the use of the word pour^ it is manifest that 
jia-ri'^a) does not here mean pour. Now try 
immerse. ^'And there went out unto him all 
the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and 
were all iminersed of him in the river of Jordan, 
confessing their sins." This certainly makes 
sense. Preachers do often immerse people in 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? " 25 

a river. I have done it many times myself. 
Therefore as between the three translations, 
sprinkle^ pour^ and immerse , in this passage, im- 
merse alone can be taken because it, alone of 
the three, makes sense. 

When men wish to determine the meaning 
of a word in any language they first turn to 
standard lexicons of that language and see what 
definitions are given, and -these are applied to 
the passages in question. I might give the 
translations of any number of lexicons, but two 
will suffice; and since neither of these was pre- 
pared by a Baptist, neither can be suspected of 
any partiality for Baptist views. The standard 
Greek lexicon at all universities and colleges 
among EngHsh-speaking people is Liddell and 
Scott's, seventh edition. This lexicon gives 
the meaning oi ^a-zi^n) as simply ^*to dip in or 
under water." It gives as a secondary mean- 
ing, -'to draw wine by dipping." There is no 
hint of sprinkling or pouring. At the Univer- 
sity of Virginia, at Harvard, at Yale, at Cor- 
nell, at Princeton, at Vanderbilt, etc., etc., 
Liddell and Scott is the standard Greek lexicon. 
Would it not be a marvel if Messrs. Liddell and 
Scott were ignorant of the meaning oi^ar^ri'^Lo ? 
The other lexicon I mention is Prof. Thayer's, 
based on Grimm's Wilke's German work. This 



2 THE FAITH OP^ BAPTISTS. 

lexicon is the standard in all the theological sem- 
inaries of all the denominations and is a lexicon 
of the Greek used in the New Testament. This 
gives as meanings of y5a-r:T^<>, ' 'to dip repeatedly, 
to immerge, to submerge. " A secondary mean- 
ing is given, ^^to cleanse by dipping or sub- 
merging/*' etc., and also, "to overwhelm,'' But 
this lexicon gives the following comment under 
this word: "In the J^ew Testament it is used 
particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first 
instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by 
Christ's command received by Christians and 
adjusted to the nature and contents of their re- 
ligion (see /j«n-r:^/ia, 3), viz. an immersion in 
water, performed as a sign of the removal of 
sin, and administered to those who, impelled 
by a desire for salvation, sought admission to 
the benefits of Messiah's kingdom," To the 
{in-T'.Giia (of which haptisvi is the iVngiicized 
form), this lexicon gives only two meanings, 
•'immersion, submersion," and under this word 
defines Christian baptism : as, '^according to the 
vicAv of the apostles, a rite of sacred immer- 
sion, commanded by Christ." 

Nov\^ if {ia-T'Xto^ the word chosen by the 
Holy Spirit to describe the act of baptism, has 
any such meanings as sprinkle and poicr^ is it 
not passing strange that these standard lexicog- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 27 

raphers never heard of it? They are not Bap- 
tists^ and cannot be charged with any partiahty 
for Baptist ideas; and we have seen what they 
say. Can it be they are mistaken ? Could any- 
thing have deceived them in this matter? Why 
are their lexicons used as standards by scholars 
of all denomxinations ? Either these lexicogra- 
phers are ignorant of the meaning of iiarLzC'la)^ 
or else John the Baptist immersed the people of 
Judea in the river of Jordan, and our Lord vv^as 
immersed. What Jesus Himself did for bap- 
tism. He certainly meant for His disciples to do 
when He commanded them to be baptized; for 
else He preached one thing and practiced an- 
other. It is blasphemy to say that the preach- 
ing and praxtice of Christ were different. 

The references to baptism in the New Testa- 
ment all fit the idea of immersion, and do not 
fit the notions of sprinkling and pouring. In 
Mark vii.4, the word rendered ''wash" is 
{^(j-Ti^a)^ and the meaning is plain. Mark, 
writing primarily for the Romans, stops to ex- 
plain the absurd lengths to which the Pharisees 
carried their cleansings. ''For the Pharisees, 
and all the Jews, except they v/ash (f^i'^t^^rar) 
their hands dihgently," — the Greek is, with the 
fist — "eat not, holding the tradition of the 
elders: and when they come from the market- 



2S THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

place, except they wash (^^ja-TCfno^Tac) them- 
selves, they eat not: and many other things 
there be, which they have received to hold, 
washings [iSaTrrccrfiduQ) of cups, and pots, and 
brazen vessels/' vv. 3 and 4. Now there would 
have been no point in Mark's stopping to ex- 
plain that the Pharisees went to the great length 
of sprinkling or pouring water upon themselves 
on returning from market, when they while at 
home washed diligently, or ''with the fist," be- 
fore eating. That they would go to the length 
of immersing themselves on returning from 
market, where Gentiles had touched them, was 
a remarkable thing and worth explaining to the 
Romans, who did not know the customs of the 
Pharisees and strict Jews. Meyer, in loco, 
says: 'Tn this case £«y /xij ^a-TiGiD^^zai is not to 
be understood of washi7ig the hands^ but of im- 
mersioji, which the word in classic Greek and 
in the New Testament everywhere denotes, i.e., 
in this case, according to the context to take a 
bath. Having come from market, where they 
may have contracted pollution through contact 
with the crowd, they eat not, without having 
first bathed.'' Italics his. 

As for the immersing of ''cups, and pots, and 
brazen vessels," that was simply carrying out 
the ceremonial law, given in Leviticus xi.32: 



WHAT IS BAPTISM. 29 

''And upon whatsoever any of them, when they 
are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether 
it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, 
or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherewith any 
work is done, it must be put into water, and it 
shall be unclean until the even ; then shall it be 
clean." The cups and pots were of wood, and 
these with the brazen vessels were to be im- 
mersed for cleansing, when they became cere- 
monially unclean, while earthen vessels were to 
be broken. The word rendered '^tables'' in the 
common version (yMvw^) does not belong to the 
true text and the revisers have very properly 
omitted it. 

It is an interesting and significant fact that in 
after years, copyists, not understanding the 
customs of the Pharisees, came to this passage, 
and thought the word ^Sa-zi'^aj must be a mis- 
take, since it seemed out of the question that 
Pharisees should actually immerse themselves 
when they come from market. So these copy- 
ists ventured to strike out (^a-riZo) and insert 
pw^ziZo), which means to sprinkle. They never 
suspected [^a-zi^co could mean sprinkle or pour, 
or they would not have made the substitution. 

It is written in John iii.23, '^And John also 
was baptizing in ^^non near to Salim, because 
there was much water there: and they came. 



30 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

and were baptized.'' It is said that the ^^much 
water'' here consisted of many springs, needed 
for camping purposes by the multitudes who 
followed John; but had this been true the pas- 
sage would have read that ^^they were en- 
camped in ^non near to Salim, because there 
was much water there;" but when it is stated, 
^'John v/as baptizing in ^non near to Salim, 
because there was much water there." it is evi- 
dent that the much water was needed for the 
baptizing. 

Turning to Acts i. 5, we find a figurative use 
of i3a-rC::aj\ ''For John indeed baptized with 
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost not many days hence." I note in pass- 
ing that instead of ''with water" and "with, the 
Holy Ghost" in this and all other passages, 
where these expressions follow '^baptize" in the 
New Testament, the translation should be '^in 
water" and "in the Holy Ghost." The Greek is 
£v, and is the word from which the English i?i 
is derived and of which m is the translation. 
The Revised Version puts 171 in the margin, 
and the American revisers went on record as 
preferring to make the text read '4n water" and 
"in the Holy Ghost" in all these passages. The 
British revisers did not deny that this was the 
right meaning, but being more conservative 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 3 1 

than the Americans, they hesitated to make the 
correction. That the meaning is ''in water'' 
and '4n the Holy Ghosf is not denied, so far 
as I know, by any leading scholar. And, be- 
sides, those who practice immersion, immerse 
with water, using no other element. 

But this prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled on 
the day of Pentecost when ' 'suddenly there 
came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of 
a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where 
they were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it 
sat upon each one of them. And they were all 
filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak 
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them 
utterance." Acts ii. 2-4. Here the Spirit filled 
the house where they were sitting and filled 
them, and this is spoken of figuratively as a 
baptism, and very appropriately so. Peter in 
his sermon, however, referred to this gift of the 
Spirit as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel : 
''I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" 
(Acts ii. 17), and it is argued that baptism is 
therefore a pouring. The argument clearly 
stated is : 

The gift of the Spirit at Pentecost is called 
a baptism. 

The same thing is called a pouring. 

Therefore baptism is pouring. 



32 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

The absurdity of this argument is clearly seen 
the moment we apply it to other things; for 
example : 

Christ is called in Scripture a rock. 

Christ is called in Scripture a vine. 

Therefore a rock is a vine 
or: 

Christ is called a lamb. 

Christ is called a lion. 

Therefore a lamb is a lion. 
or: 

Christians are called sheep. 

Christians are called vine branches. 

Therefore sheep are vine branches. 
Speaking of the coming down of the Holy 
Spirit from above Joel calls it pouring; while 
speaking of the result on the people — filling the 
house and filling them — Jesus calls it a baptism. 
It was the Holy Spirit which was ^ ^poured/' 
while it was \hQ people who were ^ ^baptized." 

The act of baptism is described in Acts 
viii. 36-39 : *^And as they went on the way, they 
came unto a certain water; and the eunuch 
saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder 
me to be baptized? And he commanded the 
chariot to stand still : and they both went down 
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; 
and he baptized him. And when they came 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 33 

up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord 
caught away PhiHp ; and the eunuch saw him 
no more, for he went on his way rejoicing." 
The 37th verse, not belonging to the true text, 
is very properly omitted in the Revised Version. 
The description of the baptism, however, could 
hardly be more complete. Reader, just read 
over that passage again carefully and ask your- 
self, what was it Philip did to that eunuch? 
That was done in the right way. Unless you 
went down into the water, were then baptized, 
and came up out of the water your baptism was 
not of the New Testament kind. I know it 
used to be said that where Philip baptized the 
eunuch was a dry region without water enough 
for immersion; and it also used to be said that 
the river Jordan was too small a stream to allow 
of immersion. But since so many travelers 
from this country have visited Palestine intelli- 
gent people have ceased such talk. Dr. Tal- 
mage immersed a man in the river Jordan, as 
many other American ministers have done. 
The river Sorek runs along where Philip and 
the eunuch went, and Dr. W. M. Thomson, 
author of The Lajid afid the Book, describing 
that region, says that there is plenty of water 
there ^'to satisfy the utmost wishes of our Bap- 
tist friends." 



34 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS, 

Many references to baptism are made in the 
Acts, without any description, but since so good 
a description is given in the 8th chapter, it could 
hardly be expected that it would be repeated. 
In the 9th chapter, for example, the baptism of 
Saul of Tarsus is mentioned, with the simple 
words, ^'And he arose and was baptized." Had 
sprinkling or pouring been employed there had 
been no need of his arising, since alread}^ 
kneeling he was in a position to receive the 
sprinkling or the pouring. And had the bap- 
tism mentioned in the 9th chapter differed from 
that described in the 8th chapter, the difference 
would certainly have been pointed out. More- 
over, if any man can tell us how that baptism 
was performed, Paul is the man ; and he writes 
to the Romans (vi.4): ''We were buried there- 
fore with him through baptism into death : that 
like as Christ was. raised from the dead through 
the glory of the Father, so we also might walk 
in newness of life." Conybeare and Howson 
render this passage: ^^With Him, therefore, we 
were buried by the baptism wherein we shared 
His death [when we sank beneath the waters] : 
that even as Christ was raised up from the dead 
by the glory of the Father, so we likewise might 
walk in newness of life." They add in a foot- 
note: ^^This passage cannot be understood un~ 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 35 

less it be borne in mind that the primitive bap- 
tism was by immersion." 

A prominent Presbyterian lawyer once said 
to me: ^'I have heard my pastor explain Ro- 
mans vi.4, and it was never clear to me before.'^ 
'•'How did he explain it?" I asked. *'Why," 
said he, ''he showed that Christ was not buried 
at all, that His body was laid on a shelf, in 
Joseph's sepulchre, and there being no burial 
in the case, this passage cannot mean immer- 
sion." Whereupon I got a New Testament and 
asked him to read I. Cor. xv.3,4: ^'For I de- 
livered unto you first of all that which also I 
received, how that Christ died for our sins ac- 
cording to the Scriptures; and that he was 
buried; and that he hath been raised on the 
third day according to the Scriptures." 
''There," said I, ''you read that Christ was 
buried^ while you report your preacher as saying 
He was not buried." "I see," said the lawyer, 
"and I suppose my pastor did not know this 
passage was in the Bible." "It is to be hoped 
so," I added. 

It may be well to mention the baptism of the 
jailer at Philippi, recorded in Acts xvi. 29-34. 
Paul and Silas are in the dungeon, with their 
feet "fast in the stocks." The earthquake 
comes and arouses and alarms the sleeping 



^6 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

jailer who would kill himself but for Paul's voice 
of warning. Then the jailer * 'called for lights, 
and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell 
down before Paul and Silas, and brought them 
out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be 
saved?" Here it is written the jailer '^brought 
them out'' — let us see where he led them. The 
narrative goes on : ^^And they said, Believe on 
the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou 
and thy house. And they spake the word of 
the Lord unto him and unto all that were in his 
house." This shows he led them out of the 
prison into his house, for here they are preach- 
ing to all in the house. We read on: ''And he 
took them" — we will see later where he took 
them — "the same hour of the night," — between 
twelve and one o'clock — "and washed their 
stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, im- 
mediately. And he brought them up into his 
house, and set meat before them, and rejoiced 
greatly," etc. They were thus taken from the 
prison into the jailer's house, thence out some- 
where in the night, where he was baptized, and 
then he brought them "up into his house" 
again. Now is it likely that a new convert 
would carry the preachers out of the house be- 
tween twelve and one o'clock at night if what 
he wanted was to have a little water sprinkled 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 37 

or poured upon him and upon his household? 
The narrative is inconsistent with the idea of 
sprinkhng or of pouring. And then, too, if 
this baptism had differed from that described in 
8th chapter we may be sure Luke would have 
pointed out the difference. But it could not 
have differed since it is written, ''One Lord, 
one faith, one baptism." Jesus performed but 
one act for baptism. He did not submit to 
sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, all three, 
and, telling us ^'the mode is nonessential,'' give 
us our choice of the three. No; He did but 
the one thing, and that, as I have shown, was 
immersion, and that is what He commands all 
who love Him to do. ^*If ye love me keep my 
commandments." * 'Hereby do we know that 
we know him, if we keep his commandments. 
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not 
his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is 
not in him." I. John ii.3,4. 

But it is objected that 3,000 persons could 
not have been immersed on the day of Pente- 
cost, and therefore sprinkling or pouring must 
have been used. I answer. First : It is not 
said that 3,000 were baptized on that day. The 
language is that ' 'there were added unto them 
in that day about three thousand souls." They 
may have been baptized at other times. Sec- 



^S THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

ond : It does not take any longer to immerse a 
candidate than to sprinkle or to pour water upon 
him, with the accompanying ceremony. Third : 
Not only 3,000, but several times that number 
could easily have been immersed on the day of 
Pentecost. Three Baptist preachers in six 
hours in Ongole, India, did immerse 2,222 can- 
didate«?. According to this the twelve (for Mat- 
thias had taken Judas' place) could have im- 
mersed 13,332 persons. But there were more 
than twelve administrators, for it is written that 
in that upper chamber at Jerusalem there were 
^^an hundred and twenty" present, and on the 
day of Pentecost '^they were all with one ac- 
cord in one place.'' It is evident therefore 
that there is no force in the objection that 
^^three thousand could not have been immersed 
on the day of Pentecost." 

It is ^argued that John's baptism, to which 
Jesus submitted, was not Christian baptism, and 
that our Lord was baptized in order to be in- 
ducted into his priesthood. It is urged that 
since certain sprinklings were in the consecra- 
tion of the Aaronic priests, John must have 
sprinkled the water on Christ. It is strange 
that the same persons should urge both these 
arguments since they are mutually destructive, 
and to show this is why they are here men- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 39 

tioned together. If John's baptism was sprin- 
khng and was not Christian baptism then 
sprinkling is wrong. The passage in Acts 
xix. 2-5, is relied upon to show a difference be- 
tween John's baptism and Christian baptism. 
Those disciples at Ephesus ^^had not so much 
as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," 
and yet they claimed to have been baptized 
'^unto John's baptism." They certainly had 
never heard John preach, since he preached 
about the Holy Ghost (Matt. iii. 1 1 and Luke 
iii. 16). They had probably been baptized by 
some who had heard John, and who did not 
understand the matter rightly. This baptism 
being defective was not valid and these candi- 
dates must be baptized. That a man has al- 
ready received an improper baptism is no 
reason he should not be baptized rightly. 

John's baptism was the only kind Jesus and 
the Apostles received, and if it were not Chris- 
tian baptism, then those who established the 
first churches never received Christian baptism. 
The very word Christian is Christ-tan^ and to 
say that what Christ did was not Christian is a 
contradiction. No, the Bible gives no warrant 
for drawing any distinction between John's 
baptism and Christian baptism. Christ did a 
certain thing and called it baptism ; when He 



40 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

commands us to be baptized, He must have in- 
tended for us to do that thing. 

As for Christ's being baptized in order to be 
inducted into His priesthood, that is a notion 
utterly foreign to Scripture, and to the facts of 
the case. Jesus was not a priest after the order 
of Aaron at all, but after the order of Melchise- 
dek, and was never 'inducted into His priest- 
hood,'' since He was ^'a priest forever," ^'hav- 
ing neither beginning of days, nor end of life." 
No ceremonial consecration was in order, since 
He was made a priest ^^not after a law of a 
carnal commandment, but after the power of 
an endless life." Heb. vii. i6. In the seventh 
chapter of Hebrews, Christ's priesthood is dis- 
cussed and the distinction between His priest- 
hood and the Aaronic is emphasized. All the 
Aaronic priests must be of the tribe of Levi, 
and of the family of Aaron, while Christ was of 
4he tribe of Judah. 'Tor it is evident that our 
Lord sprang out of Judah : of which tribe Moses 
spake nothing concerning priesthood." Heb. 
vii. 14. And besides, in the consecration of 
the Aaronic priests there were various cere- 
monies in addition to the ablutions, shaving, 
being clad in special garments, etc. , etc. Why 
were all these omitted if Jesus was baptized as 
a consecration to the priesthood? And it was 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 4 1 

no part of John's business to consecrate Aaronic 
priests; that was the business of Caiaphas and 
Annas. 

The early version of the New Testament into 
Syriac translates the Greek [la-Ti'iio by amad, 
which means immerse. The great ^'Thesaurus 
Syriacus/' the highest authority on Syriac, de- 
fines amad^ ' 'descenUit^ mei^stis est, baptizatus esf^ — 
to descend, to immerse, to baptize. 

In Greece, where the Greek language is still 
spoken, only immersion is practiced for bap- 
tism, and the Greeks laugh at the idea of 
/5«7rr:'C^'s meaning sprinkle or pour. If the 
Greeks do not know the meaning of a Greek 
word — who does know? 



42 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 

TN all these discussions no Baptist scholar has 
^ been quoted, not for any lack of them, 
since they are abundant, but to show that the 
positions taken are sustained by the scholarship 
of other denominations. 

It were easy to fill a large volume with such 
testimonies, but a few representative scholars 
from different denominations have been chosen 
as fair samples. Plenty more of the same sort 
are ready to be furnished on demand. Let 
the reader carefully consider that the statements 
herewith given come from men who themselves 
practiced sprinkling or pouring for baptism, 
and since they make such concessions against 
their own practice — are not the concessions 
true? How came they to say these things if 
they be not true? Being great scholars they 
knew the truth on this matter, and they were 
honest enough to tell it, even though it made 
against their own practice. Would they have 
made false concessions against their own prac- 
tice? 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 43 

WHAT EPISCOPALIAN SCHOLARS SAY. 

Bishop Lightfoot says (Comm. on Colossians, 
p. 182) : ^^Baptism is the grave of the old man, 
and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath 
the baptismal waters, the believer buries there 
all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he 
emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened 
to new hopes and a new life. . . . Thus bap- 
tism is an image of his participation both in the 
death and in the resurrection of Christ." 

Dean Stanley says, in his ^'History of the 
Eastern Church,'' p. 117: ^ There can be no 
question that the original form of baptism — the 
very meaning of the word — was complete im- 
mersion in the deep baptismal waters; and that, 
for at least four centuries, any other form was 
either" unknown, or regarded, unless in the 
case of dangerous illness, as an exceptional, 
almost a monstrous case." 

Archdeacon Farrar, in his *'Life and Work 
of St. Paul," Vol. II, p. 220, says: ^The life of 
the Christian being hid with Christ in God, his 
death with Christ is a death to sin, his resurrec- 
tion with Christ is a resurrection to life. The 
dipping under the waters of baptism is his 
union with Christ's death; his rising out of the 
waters of baptism is a resurrection with Christ, 
and the birth to a new life." 



44 'IHE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

Bishop Smith, of Kentucky, says: "Immer- 
sion was not only universal six or eight hundred 
years ago, but it was priijiitive and apostolic^ no 
case of baptism standing on record by any 
other mode for the first three hundred years, 
except the few cases of those baptized clinic- 
ally, lying in bed. If any one practice of the 
early church is clearly established it is immer- 
sion." Kendrick on Baptism, p. 150. 

WHAT PRESBYTERIAN SCHOLARS SAY. 

John Calvin, in his "Institutes,'' Book IV, 
Chap. XV, says: "The very word baptize signi- 
fies to immerse ; and it is certain that immersion 
was- the practice of the ancient church." 

Dr. Philip Schaff, on Rom. vi.4, says : "That 
the custom of baptism by immersion is alluded 
to is generally admitted." 

On Col. ii.i2, he says: "The passage shows 
that immersion was the mode in the apostle's 
mind." 

Again, in his "History of the , Christian 
Church," Vol. I, p. 468: "The usual form of 
baptism was immersion. This is inferred from 
the original meaning of the Greek ^auri^^vj and 
^aiiTiaixo^'^ from the analogy of John's baptism 
in the Jordan; from the apostle's comparison. 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 45 

of the sacred rite with the miraculous passage 
of the Red Sea; with the escape of the ark 
from the flood; with a cleansing and refreshing 
bath, and with burial and resurrection; finally, 
from the general custom of the ancient church, 
which prevails in the East to this day.'' 

Dr. Thomas Chalmers, on Romans vi.4, says : 
*'The original meaning of the word baptism is 
immersion, ... we doubt not that the preva- 
lent style of the administration in the apostle's 
days was by an actual submerging of the whole 
body under water." 

Dr. McKnight says, "On the Epistles," p. 85 : 
*^He (Christ) submitted to be baptized, that is 
buried under the water by John, and to be 
raised out of it again, as an emblem of his 
future death and resurrection. In like man- 
ner, the baptism of believers is emblematical of 
their own death, burial and resurrection." 

Dr. Albert Barnes says, in his note on Rom. 
vi.4 : "It is altogether probable that the apostle 
in this place had allusion to the custom of bap- 
tizing by immersion." 

WHAT METHODIST SCHOLARS SAY. 

John Wesley, in his "Notes on the New 
Testament, " on Rom. vi. 4, says : ''We are bicriei 



46 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

with him, alluding to the ancient manner of 
baptizing by immersion." 

Dr. Tyerman, in his ^'Life and Times of 
Wesley/' p. 130, says: ^'He (Wesley) refused 
to baptize a child of Mr. Parker's, second bailiff 
of the town, because the parents objected to its 
being dipped.'' 

Adam Clarke says, in his ^ ^Commentary on 
the New Testament," on Col. ii. 12: ''Buried 
with him in baptism; alluding to the immersion 
practiced in the case of adults^ wherein the 
person appeared to be buried under the water, 
as Christ was buried in the heart of the earth." 

George Whitfield, the great preacher, says, 
in his eighteenth sermon (p. 297) : "'\t\'^ certain 
that in the words of our text, Rom. vi.3,4, there 
is an allusion to the mariner of baptizing, which 
was by immersion, which is what our church 
allows," etc. 

WHAT LUTHERAN SCHOLARS SAY. 

Meyer, in his ^'Commentary on the New 
Testament," on Markvii.4, says: 'Tn this case 
lav irq [ia-zia, is not to be understood of wash- 
ing the hands, but of immersion, which the word 
in classic Greek and in the New Testament 
everywhere denotes, i.e., in this case, accord- 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 47 

ing to the context; to take a bath. See also 
Luke xi.38; Comp. Eccles. xxxi. 25; Judith 
xii.7. Having come from market, where they 
may have contracted pollution through contact 
with the crowd, they eat not, without having 
first bathed J"" 

Mosheim, * ^Ecclesiastical History,'' Vol. I, 
p. 129, says, speaking of the manner of baptism 
in the first century: ^'The sacrament of bap- 
tism was administered in this century, without 
the public assemblies, in places appointed and 
prepared for that purpose, and was performed 
by immersion of the whole body in the baptis- 
mal font." 

Neander, ^'History of the Christian Religion 
and Church, '^ Vol. I, p. 310, says of baptism 
in the first three centuries: ^'In respect to the 
form of baptism, it was in conformity with the 
original institution and the original import of 
the symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign 
of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being 
entirely penetrated by the same. It was only 
with the sick, where the exigency required it, 
that any exception was made; and in this case 
baptism was administered by sprinkling.'' 

Martin Luther himself says: ^'For to baptize 
in Greek is to dip., and baptizing is dipping. Be- 
ing moved by this reason, I would have those 



48 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped 
into the water, as the word doth express, and as 
the mystery doth signify." AVorks, Wittemb. 
Ed., Vol. II, p. 79. 

WHAT CONGREGATIONALIST SCHOLARS SAY. 

Prof. L. L. Paine, D.D., of Bangor Theolog- 
ical Seminary, says : ^^It may honestly be asked 
by some. Was immersion the primitive form of 
baptism, and, if so, what then? As to the 
question of fact, the testimony is ample and de- 
cisive. No matter of church history is clearer. 
The evidence is all one way and all church his- 
torians of any repute agree in accepting it. 
We cannot even claim originality in teaching 
it in a Congregational seminary. And we 
really feel guilty of a kind of anachronism in 
writing an article to insist upon it. It is a point 
on which ancient medieval and modern histo- 
rians alike. Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran 
and Calvinist have no controversy. And the 
simple reason for this unanimity is that the 
statements of the early fathers are so clear, and 
the light shed upon their statements from the 
early customs of the church is so conclusive, 
that no historian who cares for his reputation 
would dare to deny it, and no historian who is 
worthy of the name would wish to do so/' 
Article in Christian Mirror. 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 49 

The above was called out by some adverse 
criticism on the teaching concerning baptism in 
the Theological Seminary at Bangor, as follows : 
*^Q.' What was the apostolic and primitive 
mode of baptism ? A. By immersion. Q. Un- 
der what circumstances only was sprinkling 
allowed? A. In cases of sickness. Q. When 
was the practice of sprinkHng and pouring gen- 
erally introduced ? A. Not until the fourteenth 
century. Q. For what reason was the change 
adopted? A. As Christianity advanced and 
spread in colder latitudes, the severity of the 
weather made it impracticable to immerse.'' 

Prof. Moses Stuart, in his book on Baptism, 
p. 149, says: *'But enough. ^It is,' says Au- 
gusti, 'a thing made out,' viz., the ancient prac- 
tice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers 
who have thoroughly investigated this subject 
conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient 
times which seems to be more clearly made 
out. I cannot see how it is possible for any 
candid man who examines the subject to deny 
this." 

WHAT ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOLARS SAY. 

Cardinal Gibbons says: ^^For several cerf- 
turies after the establishment of Christianity, 
baptism was usually conferred by immersion; 



50 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

but since the twelfth century the practice of 
baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the 
Catholic Church, as this manner is attended 
with less inconvenience, than baptism by im- 
mersion.'^ Faith of Our Fathers, p. 275. 

In the Donay Bible, with Hay dock's Notes, 
which have received the official endorsement of 
the Pope himself, and therefore come with the 
highest possible Roman Catholic authority, I 
find, on Matt, iii.6: '^ Baptized. The word 
baptism signifies a washing, particularly when 
it is done by imiiiersion or by dipping or plu7iging 
a thing under water, which was formerly the 
ordinary way of administering the sacrament of 
baptism. But the church, w^hich cannot change 
the least article of the Christian faith, is not so 
tied up in matters of discipline and ceremonies. 
Not only the Catholic Church, but also the 
pretended reformed churches, have altered this 
primitive custom in giving the sacrament of 
baptism, and now allow of baptism by pouring 
or sprinkling water upon the person baptized : 
nay, many of their ministers do it nowadays by 
filliping a wet finger and thumb over the child's 
head or by shaking a wet finger or two over 
the child, which it is hard enough to call a bap- 
tism in any sense." 

Again, on Mark i.9, the same authority says: 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 5 I 

''See notes on Matt. iii. That Christ was bap- 
tized by immersion is clear from the text; for 
he who ascended out of the water must first 
have descended into it. And this method was 
of general use in the church for 1300 years, as 
appears from the acts of councils and ancient 
rituals.'' 

Still, again, on Romans vi. 4: ''The apostle 
here alludes to the manner of administering the 
sacrament of baptism, which was then done by 
immersion or by plunging the person baptized 
under the water, in which he finds a resem- 
blance of Christ's death and burial under 
ground and of his resurrection to an immortal 
life." 

I will add a statement from the Encyclopedia 
Brittannica, Article Baptism, Vol. Ill, p. 351: 
^'The usual mode of performing the ceremony 
was by immersion. In the case of sick persons 
(clinici) the minister was allowed to baptize by 
pouring water upon the head, or by sprinkling. 
In the early church 'clinicaF baptism, as it was 
called, was only permitted in cases of necessity, 
but the practice of baptism by sprinkling grad- 
ually came in in spite of the opposition of coun- 
cils and hostile decrees. The Council of 
Ravenna, in 131 1, was the first council of the 
Church to legalize sprinkling by leaving it to 
the choice of the officiating minister.'' 



52 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

These are but samples, and similar testimo- 
nies might be brought forward, enough to fill 
large volumes. And no one will deny that 
these are thoroughly representative scholars of 
the different denominations. We have pur- 
posely left out the Baptists. The question re- 
curs : How came these scholars to make these state- 
ments against their own practice^ if they he not 
true ? Could they have been deceived ? If so, 
what deceived them? Their prejudices and 
their practice lie on the side of sprinkling and 
pouring, and yet they say that Christ was im- 
mersed, that immersion was the practice of the 
Apostles and early Christians and that sprinkling 
and pouring are innovations introduced later. 

How CAME THEY TO SAY THESE THINGS IF THEY 
ARE NOT TRUE ? 

It is no answer to say that these men did not 
think it necessary to be immersed themselves 
and so continued to practice affusion. That is 
a matter of their consistency which has no 
bearing on our duty. But if their statements be 
true^ if Christ was immersed and if that was the 
practice of the Apostles^ then it is the solemn 
duty of every believer to be immersed, and he 
is not truly baptized until he has been im- 
mersed. And the very fact that the statements 
of these scholars are against their own practice 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 55 

makes the statements much stronger. HOW 
CAME THEY TO SAY THESE THINGS 
IF THEY BE NOT TRUE? Do you not, 
dear reader, see that they are true; and that if 
you are a believer in Christ and have not been 
immersed, as taught in the New Testament, it 
is your solemn duty to go forward at once in 
this duty? Baptism is the only thing we are 
commanded to do, in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Many 
commands are given us in the Scriptures, but 
this is the only one we are to obey in the name 
of the sacred Trinity. Will you say: ^^Ahl 
well, it is not essential, and it suits me to go on 
as I am ; to be imm^ersed now would separate 
me from many I love, and there are plenty of 
good people who are not immersed"? Will you 
say that, and thus seek to quiet your conscience ? 
Then listen to the words of the Lord Jesus: 
^Tf ye love me keep my commandments," ^'He 
that hath my commandments and keepeth 
them, he it is that loveth me/' '^Why call ye 
me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I 
say?" And the Holy Spirit says through the 
Apostle John (I. Johnii.3,4): ' 'Hereby know 
we that we know him, if we keep his command* 
ments. He that saith, I know him, and keep- 
eth not his commandments, is a liar and the 
truth is not in him/' 



54 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

Some years ago I was conversing about bap- 
tism with an esteemed minister of another de- 
nomination, and he said: ^^The older I grow 
and the more I love the Lord, the less I care for 
these nonessential things." I replied: ""^I'tdoes 
not affect me in that way. The more I love 
the Lord the more careful I am to do exactly 
what He requires, so nearly as I can find it out. 
It is written, ^He that hath my commxandments 
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me,' and 
'If ye love me keep my commandments.''' 
Then I handed him a copy of the New Testa- 
ment, asking him to read aloud the above pas- 
sage, I. John ii.3,4. Taking the book, he read 
slowly : ' *Here-by-know-we-that-we-know-him- 
if-we-keep-his-com-mand-ments. He-that-saith - 
I-know - him - and - keep - eth - not-his-com-mand- 
ments — " Here he paused, laid the book 
down, walked away, and reported I said he was 
a liar. 

What is the use in being wrong, when you 
can be right? What is the sense in being 
doubtful, when you can be certain ? 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 55 

CHAPTER IV. 

WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 

CINCE baptism is a positive ordinance, it is 
^ binding on us solely because it is com- 
manded by our Lord. We are to perform the 
act laid down, and nothing else can be substi- 
tuted for it : so only those are to be baptized 
who are included in the command. If baptism 
were a means of conveying grace to its recipi- 
ents then it might be argued that it should be 
given to all who need the grace, and this is, 
virtually, the chief argument for infant baptism. 
As in the case of the act of baptism, so here in 
the case of the subjects our appeal must be to 
the Scriptures. Baptists hold that the Bible 
teaches that believers in Christ and none 
others are to be baptized. No example or pre- 
cept for baptizing infants can be found in the 
Word of God, and the advocates of infant bap- 
tism do not claim any such example or precept. 
They claim, however, that by inference and 
deduction they can get a warrant for the prac- 
tice from the Bible. 

Turning to the Scripture we must pass over 



56 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

the Old Testament, because it says nothing 
about baptism, and we must, of course, ever 
turn to those parts of the Bible which treat of 
the topic we are studying. Baptism began with 
John the Baptist, who was specially commis- 
sioned of God to preach and to baptize. He 
told the people to ^'repent'' and to ^^bring forth 
fruits meet for repentance/' John's baptism is 
called (Mark i. 4) ^Hhe baptism of repentance," 
and since infants cannot repent, no infants. 
were baptized by John. It is written (Mark i. 5), 
*^And there went out unto him all the land of 
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all 
baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confess-* 
ing their sins." There could have been no in- 
fants among them, since infants cannot confess 
their sins. 

Jesus Christ's example is against infant bap- 
tism. He was baptized at the beginning of His 
public ministry, and not in His infancy. Be- 
ing sinless He could not repent and confess any 
sins, but in imitation of His example we are 
baptized as we enter publicly upon His service. 

The great commission our Lord gave His 
disciples is : ' ^Go ye therefore, and disciple all na- 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 57 

commanded you.'^ The Greek work fj,a67jTiu (rare y 
translated ^eac/i in the common version, means 
/o disciple^ as all scholars agree. The discipling 
comes before the baptism, and, therefore, only 
believers are to be baptized. 

The disciples and early Christians baptized 
only believers. On the day of Pentecost (Acts 
ii.41), we read, '^Then they that gladly re- 
ceived his word were baptized,'^ and this lan- 
guage precludes the idea of infants being bap- 
tized. Peter had said (v. 38), ^ ^Repent and be 
baptized every one of you,^' etc., putting re- 
pentance before baptism, and calling on only 
those who had repented to be baptized. In 
Samaria, under Philip's preaching (Acts viii. 12), 
it is written: ^'But when they believed Philip 
preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were 
baptized, both men and women. '' The mention 
of ^^men and women" shows there were no in- 
fants baptized there. And the same is true in 
all the baptisms recorded; in every case only 
believers are mentioned. In the cases of Paul, 
the eunuch, Simon, Crispus, Cornelius, Lydia, 
the jailer, Stephanas, and all the rest, there is 
no hint of the baptism of any but believers. 

But are there not cases of the baptism of 
households mentioned, and may there not have 



58 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

been infants in these? There are five house- 
hold baptisms spoken of; let us examine them 
in order : 

The first case is that of Cornelius, and we read 
(Acts x.44ff.)j ^'While Peter yet spake these 
words the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word." And in the 47th and 48th 
verses, Peter answered : ' ^Can any man forbid 
water that these should not be baptized, which 
have received the Holy Ghost, as well as wx? 
And he commanded them to be baptized in the 
name of the Lord.'' All who were there bap- 
tized had ^^heard the word,'' and had ^ ^received 
the Holy Ghost," as well as the Apostles had 
received Him; therefore no infants could have 
been among them. 

The next case is Lydia, Acts xvi. 14, 1 5 : ' ^ And 
a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of pur- 
ple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped 
God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, 
that she attended unto the things which were 
spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, 
and her household, she besought us, saying. If 
ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, 
come into my house, and abide there." Not 
only is there no mention of any infants here, 
but all the conditions of the case are opposed to 
such a supposition. There is no hint that 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 59 

Lydia was ever married and had any children at 
all. She was a traveling merchant, common at 
that time, and went from city to city selling 
purple cloth. Her home was in Thyatira (she 
is said to have been ^^of the city of Thyatira"), 
and here in Philippi she was on the other side 
of the sea and fully two weeks' journey from 
her home. Even if she were married, and even 
if she had infant children at that time, she 
would have hardly had them with her on this 
selling journey. Her household were her em- 
ployes and attendants. Moreover the house- 
hold of Lydia are called ^ ^brethren," in verse 
40, of this same chapter. 

The third case is the jailer and his family. 
Acts xvi.33,34: ^^And he took them the same 
hour of the night, and washed their stripes; 
and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 
And when he had brought them into his house, 
he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing 
in God with all his house." There could have 
been no infants, since it is stated that they all 
believed. 

The fourth case is Crispus, Acts xviii. 8 : 
^^And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, 
believed on the Lord with all his house; and 
many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and 
were baptized." Language could not declare 



6o THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

more clearly that only believers in this instance 
were baptized. 

The fifth and last case is Stephanas, and here 
we have simply the statement of Paul, I. Corin- 
thians i.i6: ^'And I baptized also the house- 
hold of Stephanas,'' and the statement at the 
close of this Epistle, xvi.15, ''Ye know the 
house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of 
Achaia, and that they have addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints/' Here it is 
stated that the household of Stephanas had ''ad- 
dicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," 
and that could not be true of infants. Luke 
had told us of Paul's visit to Corinth, when he 
founded the church there, and says, Acts xviii. 8, 
in connection with the conversion of Crispus, 
^^And many of the Corinthians hearing be- 
lieved, and were baptized," and the household 
of Stephanas must have been among them. 

These five cases are all the household bap- 
tisms mentioned in the Scriptures, and it is 
evident they furnish no warrant whatever for 
infant baptism. Indeed, it is worthy of remark 
that there are but five such cases in the whole 
New Testament. Not long ago I went over 
the register of Walnut-street Baptist Church, 
Louisville, and found there were in the fellow- 
ship of that one church twenty-nine entire bap- 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 6 1 

tized households. And there were many other 
households represented, not all baptized, be- 
cause some members of the family remained 
unconverted, and yet which could have been 
added to the twenty-nine had these unconverted 
ones repented. 

BAPTISM NOT IN PLACE OF CIRCUMCISION. 

It is claimed that baptism came in the place 
of circumcision, that ' ^the church is the same in 
all ages," and while under the old dispensation 
infants were taken into the church by circur»- 
cision, or their church membership recognized 
by that rite, under the new dispensation bap- 
tism has been substituted. We might trace 
analogies between baptism and circumcision, 
and the most obvious one is that as those who 
were the literal seed of Abraham received cir- 
cumcision, so those who are the spiritual seed 
of Abraham, by faith in Jesus Christ (Gala- 
tians iii.29), are to receive baptism; and this 
analogy is opposed to infant baptism, since in- 
fants cannot have faith in Christ. But the 
very meanings of the two ordinances are so 
different that it is impossible that the baptism 
of both sexes should be a substitute for the cir- 
cumcision of the males. The Bible nowhere 



62 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

declares, or even hints, that baptism lias come 
in the place of circumcision, and this is all that 
the advocates of believers' baptism need to say. 
Those who affirm that baptism is a substitute 
for circumcision must prove it. 

But since this is the argument chiefly relied 
on by the advocates of infant baptism, it is well 
to show how the idea of such substitution con- 
tradicts the plain teaching of the New Testa- 
ment. There are three points worth noting in 
this connection. 

I. When the controversy arose among the 
^Jewish Christians at Antioch, as to whether be- 
lieving Gentiles should be required to be circum- 
cised, the matter was carried up to Jerusalem to 
be settled by a council of ^ ^apostles and elders.'^ 
We have the account in the 15th chapter of 
Acts. Had baptism come in the place of cir- 
cun>cision this question could never have arisen, 
since everybody would have known that be- 
lieving Gentiles, having been baptized, need 
not be circumcised. And even if we may sup- 
pose the substitution to have been made, and 
the Christians at Antioch so ignorant as not to 
have heard of it, in that case the decision of the 
council must have been to inform them that, 
since baptism had taken the place of circum- 
cision, no baptized Gentile should be circum- 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 63 

cised. But this council did not make any such 
answer, though the relation of circumcision to 
Christians was the very point under considera- 
tion. They made no mention of baptism in 
the connection, showing that they did not con- 
sider that there was any relation between bap- 
tism and circumcision. The decision of the 
council was: ''Forasmuch as we have heard, 
4h^t certain which went out from us have trou- 
bled you with words, subverting your souls, 
saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the 
law; to whom we gave no such commandment: 
It seemed good to us, being assembled with 
one accord, to send chosen men unto you with 
our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have 
hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas 
and Silas, who shall also tell you the same 
things by mouth. For it seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no 
greater burden than these necessary things; 
that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and 
from blood, and from things strangled, and 
from fornication : from which if ye keep your- 
selves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.'^ Acts 
XV. 24-29. No hint of baptisrn's having taken the 
place of circumcision, though that would have 
been the answer to the question had it been the 



64 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

fact. Indeed so different, in their judgment, 
were baptism and circumcision, that a question 
concerning the latter did not even suggest the 
former to their minds. 

2. Paul took Timothy and circumcised him 
after he had been baptized. (Acts xvi. 1-3.) 
This would have been impossible had baptism 
come in the place of circumcision, and Paul's 
action here flatly contradicts any such clain^ * 

3. When Paul went up to Jerusalem for the 
last time the Apostle James, the pastor of the 
church there, and the brethren said to him 
(i.e., Paul), (Acts xxi.20-24): ''Thou seest, 
b)rother, how many thousands of Jews there are 
which believe; and they are all zealous of the 
law : and they are informed of thee, that thou 
teachest all the Jews which are among the Gen- 
tiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought 
not to circumcise their children, neither to walk 
after the customs. What is it therefore? the 
multitude must needs come together : for they 
will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this 
that we say to thee : We have four men which 
have a vow on them; them take and purify 
thyself with them, and be at charges with them, 
that they may shave their heads : and all may 
know that those things, whereof they were in- 
formed concerning thee, are nothing ; but that 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 65 

thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest 
the law." And the chapter goes on to tell how 
Paul did this in order to contradict the report 
that he had taught Jewish parents not to cir- 
cumcise their children. Had baptism come in 
place of circumcision, of course Paul must have 
taught Jewish parents not to circumcise their 
children, but to baptize them instead. I can- 
not see how Paul and James could more em- 
phatically have contradicted the doctrine that 
baptism is a substitute for circumcision, than by 
their course in meeting that report. 

Not only is there no foundation for the state- 
ment that baptism takes the place of circumci- 
sion in the New Testament, but its plain teach- 
ing flatly and emphatically contradicts such an 
idea. 

But there are certain passages of Scripture 
which have been urged as teaching, or at least 
as involving infant baptism. Such a passage is 
Mark x. 13-16 : ^'And they brought young chil- 
dren to him, that he should touch them; and 
his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, 
and said unto them, Suffer the little children to 
come unto me, and forbid them not; for gf 
such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto 
you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom 



66 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

of God as a little child, he shall not enter 
therein. And he took them up in his arms, 
put his hands upon them, and blessed them.'' 

There is certainly no hint of infant baptism 
in this passage, nor could it ever have suggested 
the practice. The advocates of infant baptism 
seize eagerly upon every passage where infants 
are mentioned, but in order for such passages 
to avail for the argument they must mention in- 
fants and baptism in connection. In this pas- 
sage there is mention of infants, but no hint of 
baptism, just as in other passages where baptism 
is mentioned there is no hint of infants. Those 
infants were brought to Christ, not to be bap- 
tized, but '^that he should touch them." He 
did not baptize them — He baptized nobody. 
(John iv.2, ^ ^Though Jesus himself baptized 
not, but his disciples.") '^He put his hands 
upon them and blessed them." A very differ- 
ent thing, this, from baptism. 

It was the custom for parents to carry young: 
children to famous rabbis and teachers to re- 
ceive their blessing. These people had heard 
the fame of Jesus, and they brought their chil- 
dren ^^that he might touch them." Had infant 
baptism been practiced the disciples would have 
understood it, and would not have rebuked 
ihose who brought the infants. The very fact 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 67' 

of this rebuke proves that infant baptism did 
not then exist. Our Lord seizes upon this cus- 
tom, and By it teaches a great fundamental 
principle of His kingdom, viz: ^'Whosoever 
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little 
child, he shall not enter therein." This is 
Christ's explanation of what He means by say- 
ing, *'0f such is the kingdom of God.'' The 
meaning of this passage is so plain to one who 
will take the pains to observe what it really 
does say, -that it is a matter of surprise that it 
should be cited in proof of infant baptism. We 
have found many Pedobaptists who actually 
believed this passage stated that Christ baptized 
those young children. 

Another passage often relied upon is I. Corin- 
thians vii. 12-15, though usually only the i4tli 
verse is quoted: *Tf any brother hath a wife 
that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell 
with him, let him not put her away. And the 
woman which hath an husband that believeth 
not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let 
her not leave him. For the unbelieving hus- 
band is sanctified by the wife, and the unbe- 
lieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else 
were your children unclean; but now are they 
holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him 
depart. A brother is not under bondage in 



68 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

such cases: but God hath called us to peace/' 
It is claimed that the statement, ^^Else were 
your children unclean; but now are they holy," 
furnishes a warrant for baptizing children on 
the faith of one believing parent. But here 
again, where children are mentioned there is 
no hint of baptism. The Bible talks of baptism 
in some passages, and of infants in other pas- 
sages, but never of both in the same passage. 
But if this passage furnishes such a warrant, as 
is claimed, it proves too much. The word ren- 
dered sanctified is the same as that rendered 
Jioly, Therefore, if children are to be baptized 
on the faith of a believing parent, then an un- 
b)elieving husband is to be baptized on the faith 
of his believing wife, and conversely. 

But the meaning of this passage also is plain 
to those who take pains to observe just what it 
says, and what is the connection. The Apostle 
is instructing those husbands and wives who are 
married to heathen companions. Must a wife 
who is a Christian leave her heathen husband ? 
No; answers the Apostle, ^^not if he be pleased 
to live with her." But if he will not submit to 
having a Christian wife and ^ ^depart, let hhii 
depart.'' 

Dean Stanley says that this passage is * ^de- 
cisive against the practice of infant baptism" in 



WHO oix;ht to be baptized ? 69 



^» 



New Testament times. And Dr. Meyer — the 
most scholarly of all the commentators — says of 
this passage: '^Had the baptism of Christian 
children been then in existence, Paul could not 
have drawn this inference, because in that case 
the u.ytozri^ of such children would have had 
another basis. That the passage before us 
does not even contain an exegeticai justification 
of infant baptism, is shown in the remarks on 
Acts xvi. 15." Both Dean Stanley and Dr. 
Meyer practiced infant baptism, and these con- 
cessions are 'against their own practice. 

It* is written, Eph. iv.5: "One Lord, one 
faith, one baptism.'' There can be but one 
right baptism, just as there can be but one Lord 
and but one true faith. Believers' baptism and 
infant baptism are not the same, and no reason- 
ing can make them the same. It is generally 
admitted that believers' baptism is taught in the 
New Testament, and since it is different from 
infant baptism, and antagonistic, since the uni- 
versal prevalence of the one is the destruction 
of the other, and there can be but one right 
baptism, it necessarily follows that the baptism 
of infants is contrary to God's Word. 

Attempts have been made to argue from 
Jewish proselyte baptism to infant baptism. 
But Jewish proselyte baptism was and is im- 



70 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

mersion. The strict Jews to-day immerse all 
Gentiles who join them. And Jewish proselyte 
baptism was not in existence in the New Testa- 
ment or post- Apostolic periods. The Jews bor- 
rowed their baptism from the Christians, and, 
by the way, they would never have done this 
if they had had any idea that baptism was de- 
signed to supulant circumcision. 

TESTIMONIES OF SCHOLARS. 

Dr. Steitz, in Herzog's Real Encyclopedia^ 
says that ^ 'among scientifical exegetes it is re- 
garded as an established conclusion that not a 
trace of infant baptism can be discovered in the 
New Testament." Vol. XV, p. 431. 

Neander: * 'Baptism was administered at first 
only to adults, as men were accustomed to con- 
ceive baptism and faith as strictly connected.'' 
Hist. Christian ReL^ I, p. 424. 

Kitto: 'Tnfant baptism was established nei- 
ther by Christ nor the Apostles. In all places 
where we find the necessity of baptism notified, 
either in a dogmatic or historical point of view, 
it is evident that it was only meant for those 
who were capable of comprehending the word 
preached, and of being converted to Christ by 
an act of their own will." Cyclop, of Bib. Lit., 
I, p. 287. 



WHO OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED? 7 I 

John Calvin: ^^As Christ enjoins them to 
teach before baptizing, and desires that none 
but believers shall be admitted to baptism, it 
would appear that baptism is not properly ad- 
ministered unless preceded by faith." Harm, 
of Evang., Ill, p. 386. 

Martin Luther: ''It cannot be proved by the 
sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was insti- 
tuted by Christ or begun by the first Christians 
after the apostles.'' 

Richard Baxter: ^'1 conclude that all exam- 
ples of baptism in Scripture do mention only 
the administration of it to professors of saving 
faith ; and the precepts give us no other direc- 
tion." Disp. of Right to Sac, p. 156. 

Adam Clarke: '^ Teach, fiadrizeoaazs^ make dis- 
ciples of all nations ^ bring them to an acquaint- 
ance with God who bought them, and then 
b)aptize them in the name of the Father. It is 
natural to suppose that adults were the first 
subjects of baptism; for as the Gospel was, in 
a peculiar manner, sent to the Gentiles, they 
must hear and receive it, before they could be 
expected to renounce their old prejudices an • 
idolatries, and come into the bonds of the 
Christian covenant." Comm., Matt, xxviii. 19. 

Albert Taylor Bledsoe: ^Tertullian is the first 
writer in the church who makes any express 



72 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

mention of the custom of infant baptism. Be- 
fore his time, A.D. 200, there is not an allu- 
sion to the custom from which its existence may 
fairly be inferred. '^ Southern Review^ April, 
1874. 

Olshausen, commenting on I.Cor. vii. 14, says: 
^'It is moreover clear that Paul could not have 
chosen this line of argument had infant baptism 
been at that time practiced. '^ 

F. Schleiermacher says: *'A11 traces of in- 
fant baptism which one will find in the New 
Testament must first be put into it.'' Christian 
Theol., p. 383. 

These scholars all practiced infant baptism 
and they made these concessions against their 
own practice. How came they to make the7?i if 
if they are not true ? If these statements be false, 
how came these great scholars to be deceived 
against their own practice ? If, however, they 
be true — and can there be any reasonable doubt 
of their truth? — then it is the duty of every 
Christian to oppose infant baptism and to ad- 
vocate believers' baptism, as taught in Scrip- 
ture. 



THE LORD S SUPPER-CLOSE COMMUNION. 73 



CHAPTER V. 

THE LORD'S SUPPER— CLOSE COM- 
MUNION. 

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I 
delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same 
night in which he was betrayed, took bread : 

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and 
said, take, eat; this is my.body, which is broken for 
you: this do in remembrance of me. 

After the same manner also he took the cup, when 
he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament 
in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re- 
membrance of me. 

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink 
this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of 
the body and blood of the Lord. 

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat 
of that bread, and drink of that cup. 

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning 
the Lord's body.'* 

Tl APTISTS are often reproached for holding 
^ what is called ^^close communion." And 
yet, so far as I know, everybody believes in 
close communion. It is a principle which all 



74 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

denominations accept. No one argues that 
everybody, without regard to character or con- 
dition, is to come to the Lord's Supper. No 
one claims that murderers, wife beaters, and 
house burners should be invited to the Lord's 
Supper. That is close communion, because it 
places restrictions about the Lord's Supper. If 
a fence is to be put up at all around the Supper, 
you make an enclosure and you have close 
communion. It is with Christians not a ques- 
tion of whether there shall be close communion, 
but simply a question of where the fence shall 
be put. Some would enclose a larger area than 
others. How can we determine, therefore, 
where to place the fence? Is it a matter of our 
personal likings and preferences? The only 
way to settle the question is to appeal to Scrip- 
ture. Let the fence be put wherever the 
Bible puts it, and let it be maintained there 
faithfully. Let no one, therefore, cry out 
against *^close communion," because it is not a 
question among intelligent Christians of fence 
or no fence, of close communion or open com- 
munion, but simply of the degree of closeness, 
and this has not been left to us to decide. The 
Holy Spirit has given us .directions in His 
Word, which make our duty clear. 

It is hardly needful for me here to argue that 



THE LORD S SUPPER-CLOSE COMMUNION. 75 

the Lord's Supper is a memorial ordinance. It is 
not a sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, 
as Roman Catholics teach; nor does it contain 
the body and blood of Christ in some mysteri- 
ous way, as the Lutherans teach; nor is it an 
expression and symbol of Christian fellowship, 
as many evangelical Christians believe. The 
command is, ^^This do in remembrance of me," 
not in remembrance of each other, and in do- 
ing it we ^^shew the Lord's death till he come," 
and not our fellowship for Christians. Instead 
of Christians, communing together, each Chris- 
tian is individually to commune with Christ, in 
the observance of this solemn ordinance. It is 
often asked, will we not all commune together 
in Keaven, and, therefore, should we not all 
commune together here at the Lord's Supper? 
The question shows a lack of information on 
Scripture teaching. There will be no Lord's 
Supper in Heaven. This ordinance is to be 
observed until Christ come, and not after His 
coming. We partake here of the symbols of an 
absent Savior. When we reach Heaven we 
will be in His immediate presence. W^e will 
have no Lord's Supper, and no baptism, and 
no churches in Heaven. 

Turning to the New Testament we find three 
prerequisites laid down for participation in the 



76, THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

Lord's Supper: first, a credible profession of 
faith; second, baptism ; third, an orderly church 
membership. Since nearly all Christians of all 
denominations admit that these prerequisites 
are laid down in Scripture, argument would 
seem to be needless; but since there are differ- 
ences as to what these prerequisites mean, it.is 
well to consider them a little. 

I. A credible profession of faith. 

We find in every reference to the Lord's Sup- 
per in the Bible there is no hint given that any 
except those who professed faith partook. When 
our Lord instituted the Supper, He had only pro- 
fessors present. On the day of Pentecost, and 
after, those who broke bread had before ^ ^gladly 
received the Word." The command uniformly 
given to the unconverted throughout the New 
Testament is to repent and believe. Nothing 
else is to be done before repentance and faith. 
The Corinthians to whom the Apostle says he 
delivered the ordinance of the Lorci's Supper, 
he calls ^ ^saints," and there is no hint of the 
presence among them of any who did not pro- 
fess faith. For a man without faith to partake 
of the Lord's Supper, is to ^^eat and drink un- 
worthily," and so bring condemnation to his 
own souL Every argument in favor of be- 
lievers' baptism applies equally in favor of be- 



THE LORD S SUPPER-CLOSE COMMUNION. 77 

lievers' communion. The Greek Church (in- 
cluding Russia, Greece, and the East) observe 
infant communion along with infant baptism, 
and they use the same arguments which are 
used in favor of infant baptism, and there is no 
sort of reason why, if infants are to be baptized, 
they should not also partake of the Lord's 
Supper. I need not here repeat what has been 
said in favor of believers' baptism, and so we 
pass on to consider the next point. 

2. Baptism is a prerequisite to participation 
in the Lord's Supper. 

The Lord Jesus Christ was baptized at the 
beginning of His ministry. He instituted the 
Supper **the same night in which He was be- 
trayed.'' (I. Cor. xi.23.) Here we have His 
example for placing baptism before the Lord's 
Supper. 

In the great commission (Matt, xxviii. 19,20) : 
^^Go ye therefore, and teach (i.e., disciple) all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost : 
teaching them to observe all things," etc., 
baptism comes immediately after discipling, and 
although the Lord's Supper is not specifically 
mentioned, having just before that been insti- 
tuted, it is obviously included in the ^^all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you,'' which the 



78 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

baptized ones are to observe. Here, then, we 
have the command of Christ putting baptism 
before the Lord's Supper. 

And such was the practice of the Apostles. 
On the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.41) ^'they that 
gladly received the word were baptized," and 
after that came *^the breaking of bread." Under 
Philip's preaching in Samaria '^they believed 
and were baptized, both men and women." 
Philip baptized the eunuch, and did not give 
him the Lord's Supper. Saul of Tarsus was 
baptized before he partook of the Lord's Sup- 
per. The same is true of Cornelius, of Crispus, 
of Lydia, of the jailer, etc. In every instance 
baptism followed immediately after the profes- 
sion of faith, and there is no hint given any- 
where that any one partook of the Lord's Sup- 
per before being baptized. Here, then, we 
have the example of Christ, the command of 
Christ, and the example of the inspired apostles 
in favor of putting baptism before the Lord's 
Supper. 

In the very nature of the case baptism should 
precede. We are baptized but once, while we 
partake of the Lord's Supper often. Baptism 
is the public putting on of Christ, as a soldier 
puts on the uniform when he is enlisted, and so 
baptism belongs at the beginning of the Chris- 



THE LORD S SUPPER-CLOSE COMMUNION. 79 

tian life. This is recognized by well nigh all 
Christians. The open-communion Baptists and 
the open-communion Disciples are the only 
ones on earth who would give the Lord's Sup- 
per to those whom they regard as unbaptized. 
And even they do not offer any Scripture 
authority for the practice, but simply make an 
appeal to sentiment. 

3. An orderly church membership is a pre- 
requisite. 

The Apostle Paul, in the passage above 
quoted at length, says: ^T have received of the 
Lord that which I also delivered unto you." 
Who are the ''you'7 Turning to the beginning 
of the epistle, we find it is addressed ' ^unto the 
church of God which is at Corinth'' (I. Cor. i. 2). 
The Lord's Supper is therefore delivered to the 
church, and it is a church ordinance of which 
only church members are to partake. In Acts 
ii.42, w^e read; '^And they continued stead- 
fastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, 
and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." 
Here the doctrine and the fellowship are placed 
before the breaking of bread. Those who de- 
part from the apostles' doctrine and from the 
fellowship of the church are not to be invited 
to the Lord's Supper. See 1. Cor. vii. 12, and 
IL John 10,11. 



So THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

This, then, is the doctrine of ''close com- 
munion" as Baptists hold it. And is it not 
right? Are we not carrying out the Scriptures 
in so doing? Are we to be denounced as 
^/narrow/' ^'bigoted/' ''selfish," etc., etc., sim- 
ply because we faithfully carry out what the 
New Testament teaches? To put the matter 
before you practically, let us suppose that I am 
administering the Lord's Supper in my church, 
and a godly Presbyterian minister is sitting in 
the congregation, ought I to invite him to par- 
take of the Supper? He has been sprinkled in 
infancy for baptism, and he regards that as 
valid baptism, but I believe he has not been 
baptized at all; since according to the New 
Testament teaching, and according to the best 
scholars in the world of all denominations, as 
we have seen, the baptism of the New Testa- 
ment requires the immersion of a believer. If 
I were in his place, therefore, I could not con- 
scientiously come to the Lord's Supper until I 
had been immersed on a profession of my faith. 
Could I as an honest man ask him to do what 
I could not conscientiously do myself were I 
in his place? To ask this question is to an- 
swer it. 

But how about the Disciples? some will say. 
They have been immersed. Shall they not be 



THE lord's supper-close COMMUNION. 8 1 

invited? Let us bear in mind the three pre- 
requisites laid down, and let us see whether 
they have complied with them. The Disciples 
teach that baptism is in order to procure the 
remission of sins. They have cut themselves 
off from our Baptist churches, which Baptists 
are bound to believe are according to New 
Testament order, and therefore the Disciples 
have so far forth, been guilty of schism, and 
have turned their backs upon New Testament 
order. From the Baptist standpoint, therefore, 
they have not an orderly church membership. 
On the subject of the validity of their baptism 
Baptists differ, some churches receiving such 
baptisms, but the majority of our churches de- 
cline to receive them, and, I think, rightly; 
because they have perverted the design of the 
ordinance. When I was pastor in Peters- 
burg, Virginia, a Methodist lady came to me, 
desiring to join our church. She had not been 
convinced of the truth of Baptist doctrine, but 
believed in Methodism as strongly as ever, only 
she hoped that being baptized would cure her 
rheumatism. Not long before that a Methodist 
gentleman in the city, who had long been 
afflicted with rheumatism, spent a large part of 
his time in reading the New Testament and 
having it read to him, and becoming convinced 

6 



82 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

that his infant sprinkHng was not vaUd bap- 
tism, he decided to join the Baptists. His 
friends remonstrated, and told him th§,t it would 
kill a man with rheumatism to get wet. But 
he persisted, was carried to the church in a 
carriage, and was lifted down into the baptistery 
in a chair, and was thus baptized. Strangely 
enough he never had the slightest trouble after 
that with rheumatism. This good woman knew 
of this case, and having ^ 'tried everything" in 
vain, she made up her mind to try joining the 
Baptists to cure her rheumatism. She greatly 
preferred to be a Methodist, but she preferred 
to be a Baptist without rheumatism to being a 
Methodist with rheumatism. Of course I de- 
clined to baptize her. But suppose she had 
joined our church, and I had immersed her in 
the pool; would that have been valid baptism ? 
Certainly not ; because the Bible does not teach 
baptism as a remedy for disease, and she would 
have made baptism simply a medicine, and this 
radical change of the purpose of the ordinance 
w^ould have vitiated her obedience. But is it 
any worse to make baptism a medicine for the 
body than to make it a medicine for the soul? 
And if an immersion in order to- get rid of 
rheumatism is not to be accepted, can we accept 
an immersion in order to get rid of sin? A 
baptism with a perverted design is not obe- 



THE lord's supper-close COMMUNION. 83 

dience to the New Testament command, even 
though the act performed be immersion. 

WHAT THE SCHOLARS SAY. 

Neander, the great church historian, speak- 
ing of the observance of the Lord's Supper in 
the first century, says: ^^At this celebration, as 
may be easily concluded, no one could be 
present who was not a member of the Christian 
church, and incorporated into it by the rite of 
baptism." 

Justin Martyr, who wrote in the middle of 
the second century, says about the Lord's Sup- 
per: ^'This food is called by us the eucharist, 
of which it is not lawful for any one to partake, 
but such as believe the things taught by us, and 
have been baptized." (Apol. i c. 65-66; Ne- 
ander, Ch. Hist., vol. I, p. 327.) 

Dr. Wall (Episcopalian) says: ^^No church 
ever gave the communion to any before they 
were baptized. Among all the absurdities that 
were ever held, none ever maintained that any 
person should partake of the communion before 
lie was baptized. " (Hist. Inf. Bapt. , part II, c. 9. ) 

Dr. Doddridge (Presbyterian) says: *'It is 
certain that, so far as our knowledge of primi- 
tive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person re- 
ceived the Lord's Supper." (Lectures, pp. 5, 
II, 12.) 



84 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

Dr. Schaff (Presbyterian) says: ^'The com- 
munion was a regular part, and, in fact, the 
most important and solemn part, of Sunday wor- 
ship ... in which none but full members of the 
church could engage.'' (Ch. Hist., vol. I, p. 392.) 

Dr. T. L. Cuyler (Presbyterian) says: ^*I do 
not suppose there is any difference between the 
Presbyterians and the Baptists in the terms of 
communion." (Letter to Dr. Christian, Close 
Communion^ p. 83.) 

The two leading Presbyterian papers in the 
United States are The Observer^ of New York, 
and The Interior^ of Chicago. The Observer 
speaks as follows: ^'It is not a want of charity 
which compels the Baptist to restrict his invita- 
tion. He has no hesitation in admitting the 
personal piety of his unimmersed brethren. 
Presbyteria.ns do not invite the unbaptized, 
however pious they may be. It is not unchari- 
table. It is not bigotry on the part of Baptists 
to confine their communion to those they con- 
sider baptized." 

The Interior says : ' ^The difference between 
our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an im- 
portant difference. We agree with them, how- 
ever, in saying that unbaptized persons should 
not partake of the Lord's Supper. Their views 
compel them to think that we are not baptized, 
and shuts them up to close communion. Close 



THE lord's supper-close COMMUNION, 85 

communion is, in our judgment, a more de- 
fensible position than open communion, which 
is justified on the ground that baptism is not a 
prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. To charge 
Baptists with bigotry because they abide by the 
logical consequences of their position is ab- 
surd." 

Bishop Coxe (Episcopalian) says: '*The Bap- 
tists hold that we have never been baptized, 
and they must exclude us from their communion 
table if we were disposed to go there. Are we 
offended ? No. We call it proper^ and we re- 
spect it. To say that we have never become 
members of Christ by baptism seems severe, 
but it is conscientious adherence to duty, as 
they regard it. I should be the bigot, and not 
they, if I should ask them to violate their dis- 
cipline in this or any other particular." (Ch. 
Union, July, 1891.) 

The Episcopalian Prayer Book lays down the 
law: ^'And there shall none be admitted to the 
holy communion until such time as he be con- 
firmed, or be ready and desirous to be con- 
firmed." — Order of Confirmation at close. 

The Episcopal Recorder says: *'The close 
communion of the Baptist churches is but the 
necessary sequence of the fundamental idea out 
of which their existence has grown. No Chris- 
tian church would willingly receive to its com- 



50 THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

munion even the humblest and truest beUever 
in Christ who had not been baptized. With 
the Baptist, immersion only is baptism, and he 
therefore of necessity excludes from the Lord's 
table all who have not been immersed. It is 
an essential part of the system — -the legitimate 
carrying out of this creed." 

Dr. Hibbard (Methodist) says: "In one prin- 
ciple Baptist and Pedobaptist churches agree. 
They both agree in rejecting from the com- 
munion at the table of the Lord and in denying 
the rights of church fellowship to all who have 
not been baptized. The charge of close com- 
munion is no more applicable to the Baptists 
than to us Pedobaptists insomuch as the ques- 
tion of church fellowship with them is deter- 
mined by as liberal principles as it is with any 
other Protestant churches — so far, I mean, as 
the present subject is concerned; i.e., it is de- 
termined by vahd baptism." (Chr. Bapt., part 
II, p. 174.) 

Dr. Tyerman (Methodist) says: "Even in 
Georgia, Wesley excluded Dissenters from the 
holy communion, on the ground that they had 
not been properly baptized, and he would him- 
self baptize only by immersion, unless the child 
or person was in a weak state of health." 
(Oxford Methodists, p. 6.) 

The Methodist Discipline says in reference to 



THE lord's supper-close COMMUNION. 87 

the administration of the Lord's Supper: *^No 
person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper 
among us who is guilty of any practice for 
which we would exclude a member of our 
church." (Methodist Dis., sec. 408.) 

The law of the Methodists requires that they 
shall exclude from their membership a man 
who is guilty of '^inveighing against either our 
doctrine or discipline" (Sec. 283), or, also, 
^'who hold and disseminate, publicly or pri- 
vately, doctrines which are contrary to our 
articles of religion." Now, although the Meth- 
odists admit my baptism, and so far as that goes 
they might invite me to the Lord's Supper with 
them, yet they cannot consistently invite me 
because I teach publicly and privately contrary 
to their doctrines. If I were a preacher among 
the Methodists to-day, they would exclude me 
for holding and advocating Baptist doctrine, 
and then they could not invite me to the Lord's 
Supper. With what sort of propriety, therefore, 
could they invite me as the case now stands, 
since I am guilty of an offense that excludes 
from their fellowship and from their table ? 

If, then, such be the principles which are 
taught in the New Testament, are we not under 
the highest obligation to believe and maintain 
them always and everywhere? Shall we subor- 
dinate New Testament teaching to our con- 



SS THE FAITH OF BAPTISTS. 

venience, to our friendships, or to our family 
relationships ? FeeHng in our hearts a sincere 
charity for all, an earnest love for all God's 
people, and a hearty joy in all the good that is 
done in the world, shall we not stand true to 
what the Bible says? Does where we live or 
whom we marry take away our obligation to 
obey the Scriptures ? Shall we allow an appeal 
to our sentiment to move us from the solid rock 
of God's Word? Is not pleasing God of infin- 
itely more importance than either pleasing our- 
selves or pleasing men ? Has not God com- 
mitted to us these teachings as a sacred trust, 
and shall we not be faithful ? We may rely 
upon it, the Judge at the last great day will not 
say unto us, ^'Well done, good and faithful 
servant," unless we have been faithful to His 
will. '^He that hath my commandments and 
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." ^^Ye 
are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command 
you." ^Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do 
not the things which I say." '*He that saith, 
I know Him, and keepeth not His command- 
ments, is a liar and the truth is not in him." 
These are the words of Scripture. In the 
light of them we must live, die, and be judged. 
Will you not act now in the way you will wish 
you had acted when you stand to render your 
account? 



Thoug^hts on Divine Inspiration. By J. B. 

Solomon, A.M.. D.D. Pappr. single copy. 25 c; 2.') 
copies. $6.00; 50 copies, $11.50; lOO copies, $20 00. 

Baptists in History. By Kev. W. P. Harvey, 

D D. 5 cents. 
Wm. Carey. By Rev. T. W. Young, M.A. lOc 
How to Organize and Manage tlie Sunday - 

School. By Rev. B. G. Manard. 10 c. 

Reminiscences of a Long Life. By J. M. 

Pendleton. D.D., with steel engraving of the author. 
8vo. 233 pages. $1.00. 

Daniel G. Taylor, a Country Preacher. By 

J. J. Taylor, M.A. . n. I). Cloth. $1.00. 

Wong Ping San, First Native Pastor of the 
Shansrhai Baptist Church By M. F. Crawford 10 c. 

Cody's Theology Examined, By J. A. Kirt- 
ley, D.D. 25 cents. 

Paul and the Women and Other Dis- 
courses. By J. B, Hawthorne, U.D.,LL.D. Cloth. 
$1.00. 

Design of Baptism. By J. A. Kirtley, D.D. 

( loth, $1.00. 

The Work of the ^^aptists an Urgent Work. 

By Eev. J. S. Coleman. D.D. 10 cents. 
Travelling Chvirch. By Prof. Ranck. 25 c. 
The Konsuch Professor in his Meridian 

Splendor. By Rev. Wm. Seeker. $1.00. 

Sermon Notes. By C. H. Spurgeon. 4 v^ols. 

$4.00 

A Catechism of Bible Teaching. By John 

A. Broadus, D.D , LL. D 5 c. per copy; $5.00 per 
100 copies. 
Missiles of Truth. By Dr. W. W. Gardner. 

$1.00. 

Modern Dancing. By Dr. W. W. Gardner. 

100 pages. Flexible Cloth. Price 25 cents single 

copy ; 25 copies $5.00; or 100 copies $15.00 
"Apostasy." By E. R. Carswell. $1.00. 
The Whole Truth on Baptism. By J. G. 

Bow, D D. lo cents. 
Hymns— New and Old— Revised Edition. 

Edited by Prof. Towner, Rev. T. T. Eaton, D.D., 

LL.D., and Rev. Geo. H. Simmons. Music only, 

30 cents. 
Pilgrim's Progress. By John Bunyan. 50 

cents. 
Parliamentary Practice. By P. H. Mell. 

60 cents. 
Miriam Heth. By Rev. A. J. Holt. Cloth, 

75 cents. 



Church Treasurer's Book. By Theo.Speiden. 
Best on Market. loo names, $1.50; 200 names, 
$2.00; 300 names, $2.50. 

Missionary Treasurer's Kook. By J. W. 

Warder, D.D., 25 cents; by mail, 30 cents. 
Cherry Missionary Envelopes. $1.00 per 

thousand, by mail. 
Church Letters. 20 cents per dozen. 
Life of Patrick Hues Mell. By P. H. Mell.Jr. 

Steel engraving. * loth. In press. 

The Bible on Women's Public Speaking. 

By T. T. Eaton. D.D.,LL.D. Paper, 5 c. 

Webster's Handy Vest Pocket Dictionary. 

Indexed. For sale. (L. & L.) 25 cents. 
Church Koll and Record. $1.75. 
Honiiletical Exercise Book. By E. C. Dar- 

gin, D.D. 30 cents. 
Spurg-eon's Catechism. ByC. H. Spurgeon. 

5 cents. 
The Tiger's Daughter. By Elvira Sidnor 

Miller. 75 cents. 
Sovereignty of God. By G. W. Northrup, and 

Robert Watts. $1.50. 
Harmony of the Gospels. By John A. 

Broadus, D.D., LL.D. $2.25. 
Our Relation to God and Missions. By 

Rev. T. H. Mayhugh. 5 cents. 
Child's Catechism. By Rev. W. J. E. Cox. 

5 cents. 
Preaching and Scholarship. By A. T. Rob- 
ertson, D. D. 10 cents. 
Ten Years a Priest. By J. Culleton. Cloth. 

300 pages. $1.00. 

"Talks to Children." 

"They reproduce Scripture history in the 
terms of modern life and give it both a vivid 
setting before the youthful imagination and a 
firm grip in the youthful conscience." — Inde- 
pendent. 



-PUBLISHED BY- 



BAPTIST BOOK GONGERN, 

SUCCESSOR TO CHAS. T. DEARING 

N. W. Cor. Third and Jefferson Sts., ^ouisville, Ky. 

H 112 82 



H 112 82 



























S<=>^ 



- Ji§^%* -a_^ *^ *?^^C^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

<^ ^'VCT* *G^ ^b *?»;^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium OxIde 

>$> aV i## •^ Treatment Date: April 2006 







aV i # # •^ Treatment Date: April 2006 

i *^^^i^^ ^ i5^' PreservationTechnologi 

I ^Sn^S^ t ^ ^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVAT 

^ • VmR^?^^ « jp •'tj ^ ^ ^ Thomson Park Drive 

#^LUwJ^> > ^ ^ Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

^ *T^^^* r»0 (724)779-2111 












v^\ 



• •• 










<■••. 






^% 



^*. 





}?•»: 



